Could Russia give excessive fines to Google?

In a important ruling of July 8, 2025 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in the case of Google LLC and others t. Russia. The Court unanimously found that the Russian authorities had failed the freedom of speech of Google, guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), have been violated on multiple levels. The case, brought by several Google entities, including Google LLC (the provider of YouTube), revolved around two central complaints: the massive fines for not removing content on YouTube and the obligation to provide services to the Russian television channel Tsargrad TV.

Our law firm, specializing in media law and human rights, is closely following these developments. This ruling is not only important for Google, but also a signal about the role and responsibilities of online platforms and the limits of government interference.

The facts: two controversial proceedings

The case originates in two separate but related proceedings before the Russian courts.

1. Fines for not removing content
   Starting in late 2020, Russian authorities stepped up pressure on international tech companies to remove politically sensitive content. Google refused to comply with several removal requests (take-down requests) regarding videos on YouTube. These included content critical of the government, reports on the Russian invasion of Ukraine by independent news media, and statements of support for opposition politician Alexei Navalny. In response, Russian courts imposed two exceptionally high fines on Google, based on a percentage of the consolidated sales of Google and affiliates in Russia. The first fine was around 87 million euros, the second as high as 360 million euros. According to the Russian courts, this was justified because Google repeatedly refused to remove "unlawful" information.
   
2. Obligation of service to Tsargrad TV
   Parallel to this was a civil suit brought by the Russian media company Tsargrad. Google had suspended the YouTube and Gmail accounts of the Tsargrad TV channel because the channel's owner was on international sanctions lists (EU, US and Canada) for its support of Russia's annexation of Crimea. The Russian courts ruled that this suspension was illegal and contrary to Russian public order. They ordered Google to restore access to the accounts, under penalty of a fine that began at 100,000 rubles per day and would double weekly, with no upper limit. Even after access was partially restored, authorities continued to collect the fines. This led to the seizure of all assets of Google's Russian subsidiary, OOO Google, and eventually to its bankruptcy.

European court's verdict: a clear violation of Article 10 ECHR

The European Court of Human Rights was scathing in its analysis of the Russian approach, ruling that there was a violation of the right to freedom of expression in both proceedings.

1. Fines created a "chilling effect"

The Court found that the measures constituted a clear interference with Google's freedom of expression. Although such interference is allowed under strict conditions, Russia did not comply in any way.

• No legitimate purpose: The Court expressed strong doubts that the fines served legitimate purposes such as protecting national security. The removal requests indiscriminately targeted a wide range of content, including political expression and independent journalism. The Russian authorities had not shown how this content posed a real threat.
• Not necessary in a democratic society: The Court ruled that the interference was absolutely not "necessary in a democratic society." The content in question concerned issues of great public interest, which enjoy the highest degree of protection under the ECHR.
• Disproportionate sanctions: By their nature and size, the fines were disproportionate and could have a significant "chilling effect." They put pressure on Google to act as a censor for the state, at odds with the Internet's role as a platform for the free exchange of ideas.

2. Penalties for Tsargrad TV were manifestly unreasonable

The Court also viewed the obligation to host Tsargrad TV as an interference with Google's (negative) freedom of expression: the right not to be forced to distribute certain content.

• Questionable purpose and bad faith: The Russian authorities showed double standards. While claiming to protect freedom of information in the Tsargrad case, they simultaneously demanded the removal of critical voices. The court further noted that the authorities demonstrated bad faith by continuing to collect the fines even after access to the accounts was restored. The scope of the original ruling was unilaterally expanded, in violation of legal certainty.
• Manifestly disproportionate punishment: According to the court, the penalty payments were "astronomical" and disproportionate to any damages Tsargrad suffered. This approach, which was emulated in numerous "copycat" cases by state-affiliated media, made it impossible for Google to operate in Russia anymore.

Violation of the right to a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR)

In addition to violating freedom of expression, the Court also found that the right to a fair trial, as enshrined in Article 6 ECHR, had been violated. The Russian courts had failed to give proper reasons for their decisions. For example, it did not explain why the fines were calculated on the turnover of different Google entities, and ignored Google's defense that its Russian subsidiary was a separate legal entity and thus not liable for fines imposed on Google LLC.

What does this ruling mean for your business?

This ruling illustrates the growing tension between the power of large technology companies and the attempts of governments to regulate the online sphere. Although this ruling deals specifically with Russia, the principles are relevant to all of Europe, including Belgium.

• Protection for platforms: The Court recognized that imposing disproportionate fines and forcing censorship is a violation of the rights of online intermediaries themselves.
• Importance of sound reasoning: Government decisions that interfere with freedom of expression must be based on "relevant and sufficient" reasons. Automatic or stereotypical reasoning will not suffice.
• Limits to regulation: States have a margin of judgment, but it is not unlimited. Measures must always be necessary and proportionate, especially when political expression is involved.

Are you a business, media company or content creator dealing with deletion requests, online censorship or other free speech legal issues? Complex regulations and rapidly evolving case law require specialized legal assistance. Our attorneys have the expertise to advise and assist you in media law, technology and human rights litigation.